PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR v. The Central AdministrativeTribunalCity Civil Court BuildingsChennai 600 104.. 1st

18. V.S. Sadagopal19. S. Vinayagamurthy20. B. Venkatesan21. J. Prakash22. S. Gopinath.. Respondents 2 to 22 in WP NO. 2832/032. R. Thiruvenkatesan3. A. Kalaiselvam4. R. Vijayakumar5. S. Senthil Kumar6. T. Duraisamy7. D.Geetha8. K. Murali9. M. Ravi10. A.Vanaja11. P. Ramadoss12. R.Govindasamy13. S.Chakravarthi14. V. Arumaiselvam.. Respondents 2 to 14 in WP NO. 2833/032. P. Sakthi Yogaraj.. 2nd Respondent in WP NO,. 2834/032. E. Srinivsan.. 2nd Respondent in WP NO. 2835/032. J. Raghavendran3. Z. Abdul Raheem4. V. Basker5. V.Sukumar6. C. Vengadesan7. S. Karthikeyan8. J. Vijayakumari9. R. Vanitha10. Ratchaganathan11. V. Mahesh12. A. Ashok kumar13. G. Ravichandran14. V. Shanmugham15. K.S. Jayaprakash16. G. Sureshkumar17. R. Dhandapani18. P. Rajasekar19. R. Karunakaran20. S. Gopalakrishnan21. S. Ramalingam22. S. Saravanan23. B. Ramkumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

24. S. Manikandan25. N. Suresh Babu26. T. Senthil Karthikeyan27. G. Mathswaran28. S. Sivasubramanian29. S. Saravanan30. P. Geetha31. P.Senthilkumar32. R. Sasikala33. J. Sivakumar34. L. Vijaya35. C.V. Kavitha36. P. Karthikeyan,37. N. Shobana Gomathy38. S. Subbulakshmi39. M. Ayyappan40. K. Satheesh41. L. Yasida Rani42. S. Padmanabhan....Respondents 2 to 42 in WP.No. 9996/2003.2.S.Balamurgan3.R.Krishnakumar4.J.Balaji5.B.Nandhini6.Sasikala Muralidharan7.R.Patabiraman8.H.Kamal Clement9.M.Jayakumari10.K.Prabhavathy11.K.Venugopal12.R.Bhavani13.K.Balaji14.R.Janakiraman15.R.Selvi16.S.Sumithra17.R.Indra18.S.Padmini19.M.Sathishkumar20.D.Anand21.K.N.Sukumar22.A.Mansoor Ahmed23.K.Sulthan Mohideen24.R.Gurubaran25.M.Sivakumar26.S.Latha27.K.Amutha28.S.Umapathy29.S.Saravanan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

30.G.Padma31.G.Lenin Kumar32.R.Balasubramanian33.Kanagasundaram34.J.Bhuvaneswari35.M.Ganesan36.N.Lavanya37.C.Sudhakar38.R.Ramesh39.R.Krishnaveni40.D.R.Lenin41.V.Krishnaveni42.V.S.Saravanan43.D.Baskaran44.S.Karthikeyan45.M.Vimala46.M.Faridha47.S.Umarani48.R.Venkateswaran49.D.Sekar alias Devarajan50.E.Prakasam51.S.K.Venkatesan52.V.Ramesh53.K.Dhandayuthapani54.S.Poongudi55.P.Seshadri56.S.Prasath57.G.Karthikeyan58.K.Ramadoss59.M.Sadasivam60.A.Raghunathan61.G.Balaji62.S.Gangaikondacholan63.S.Amudhavalli64.R.Prakash65.T.Parthiban66.M.Indumathyi67.Vijayalakshimi68.R.Gopi69.C.Kanchana70.D.Muthulakshmi71.A.Subramanian72.V.Poomani Chellathai73.R.Sivakumar74.C.Navaraj75.S.Annamalai76.S.Venkata Balasubramanian77.Balasubramanian78.K.Arokiasamy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

79.K.Selvakumar80.R.T.Vijayalakshmi81.G.Vani82.S.Palavesam83.S.Sivasubramanian84.N.Neppolian85.P.Pandiselvi86.P.Kanesan87.S.Alarsamy88.G.Murugesan89.R.Prema90.P.Muthuraj91.A.Rehena Banu92.H.Vijayan93.G.Nisar Ahmed94.R.Dinakaran95.K.Senthilrajan96.R.Manikandan97.E.Jagadeesan98.K.Sridevi..Respondents 2 to 98 in WP 10059/03P. Saravanan....Ist Respondent in WP 30188/2003K. Sakthivel....Ist Respondent in WP 30345/2003T. Vasantha Seelan....Ist Respondent in WP 34623/2003R. Rajkumar....Ist Respondent in WP 2567/2004R. Sivakumar....Ist Respondent in WP 2711/2004M. Nandakumar....Ist Respondent in WP 2750/2004K. Magesh....Ist Respondent in WP 2762/2004J.A. Mohandoss....Ist Respondent in WP 3003/2004Benjamin Joseph....Ist Respondent in WP 3004/2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ N. Baskaran....Ist Respondent in WP 3766/2004V. Kannan....Ist Respondent in WP 3767/2004M. Nagarajan....Ist Respondent in WP 3810/2004D. Mohanraj....Ist Respondent in WP 4163/2004T. Chandra Prabha....Ist Respondent in WP 4164/20041. M. Abdul Rakheeb2. C. Rajkumar3. R. Vijaya Bhaskar4. K. Natarajan5. V. Kavitha6. V. Ramesh7. E. Sudhahar8. V.P. Kumarasamy9. V. Ponnambalam10.M. Ramesh11.P. Dhanasekaran12. R. Rajeshwari13. S. Rajalakshmi14 M. Elumalai,15. M. Rajan16. M. Thavamanimuthu17. J. Suresh18. V. Leemarosalene19. M. Valli20. P. Manivasagam21 J. Victoria Leyon22. The Registrar,Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai - 600104..... Respondent in WP 4172/2004P. Mariappan....Ist Respondent in WP 4940/2004G. MuthukuttiD/o S. Gangaimuthu....Ist Respondent in WP 4986/2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1. P. Balaraman2. P. Murugan....Respondents 1 & 2 in WP 5132/2004P. Chellapandian....Ist Respondent in WP 6369/20041. R.Chandramohan2. P. Selvam3. R. Pradeep Kumar4. D. Richard Pedrick5. T. Senthil Kumar6. C.M. Anand7. R. Balaji8. R. Raghupathi9. T, Thinesh Kumar10. R. Sivasakthi Vinayaga Kumaran11. P. Rajkumar12. P. Manokaran13. Ganasigamani14. P. Balashanmugam15. D. Sankar Ganesh16. J. Saravanan..........Respondents 1 to 16in WP.No. 6424/04C. Kothainayagi.....2nd Respondent in WP.No. 11367/04M. Francis Solaman Raj.....2nd Respondentin WP.No. 21433/2004P. Muthammal.....2nd Respondent inWP.No. 22944/2004T. Saravanan......Ist Respondent in WP 19967/2005.W.P.No.38990 of 2002 has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to callfor the records in O.A.No.1131 of 2001 on the file of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Madras and quash the order dated 28.3.2002.Petition presented to this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to issue Writs of Certiorari calling for therecords in the order dated (I) 28/3/02 in O.A.Nos 1131/01, 862/01,1149/01, 1137/01, 1138/01, 1237/01, and 1006/01 in WP.Nos. 38990/02,2832 to 2835/03 9996/2003 and 10059/03 respectively. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (II) 29/11/2002 in O.A.No. 536/02 and 537/02 (in WP.No. 30188 and30345 of 2003 respectively.(III) 10/2/2003 in O.A.No. 755/2002 in WP.No. 34623/2006(IV) dated 3/10/2002 in O.A.No. 452/02, 451/02, 454/02, 453/02,455/02, 456/02, 391/02, 457/02, 364/02, 396/02, 866/02, 553/02,397/02, 390/02, and 469/02 in WP.Nos 2567/04, 2711/04, 2750/04,2762/04, 3003/04, 3004/04, 3766/04, 3767/04, 3810/04, 4163/04,4164/04, 4172/04, 4940/04, 4986/04, and 5132/04 respectively.(V)dated 26/8/03 in O.A.No 1159/02 in WP.No. 6369/04(IV) dated 25/9/03 in O.A.No 105/2003 in WP.No 6424/04(VII) dated 05/01/04 in O.A.No 751/03 in WP.No 11367/04(VIII) dated 22/3/04 in O.A.No 675/03 in WP.No. 21433/04(IX) dated 24/12/2004 in O.A.No. 681/2003 in WP.No. 22944/2004 and (X) dated 9/9/2004 in O.A.No. 162/2004 in WP.No. 19967/05on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras andquash the said Order in all the petitions. For petitioners: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Addl.Solilcitorin all the W.Ps.: General for M/s.S.Yashwanth, M.Devadoss, M.Dhamodharan, A.Rajendran, G.Nanmaran, K.L.Nandakumar, Sudharshan Sundar, Sunita Kumari, P.Chandrasekaran & K.Kannan, all Central Govt.Standing CounselFor R.3 & R7 inWP.10059/2003,For R2, R3, R5,R8, R9, R11 to : Mr.Vijay Narayanan, S.C. forR42 in M/s.R.ParthibanWP.9996/03 :For R.1 inW.P.2567/2004,For R.1 inMr.Vijay Narayanan, S.C. forWP.3004/2004 M/s.KarthikmukundanFor R.1 to R.4,R.7 to 21 inWP.4172/2004, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For R.1 inWP.3003/2004,For R.1 in2762/2004,For R.3 to R6,R8 to 10 & 15 inWP.6424/2004: For R.1 inW.P.34623/2003: Ms.R.VaigaiFor R.1 inW.P.30188/2003,For R.2 inWP.11367/2004: Mr.P.RajendranFor R.1 in WP.4163/2004,For R.1 inWP.3810/2004,For R.1 inWP.4940/2004For R.2 inWP.38990/2002,For R.1 inWP.4986/2004,For R.2 in WP.22944/2004,For R.2 inWP.2832 to 2835/2003: Mr.R.MalaichamyFor R.1 inWP.2711/2004,WP.3766/2004,R.1 inW.P.3767/2004,for R.1 inW.P.4164/2004For R.1 inW.P.6369/2004For R1, R.2,R.7, R11 &R.13 to R.16 inWP.6424/2004,For R.2 inWP.21433/2004, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for R1 to R6 in R1 in 30345/03 R4, 6, 7 & 10 in W.P.9946/03WP.4172/2004 : No appearanceR1 in W.P.2750/04 : No appearanceR1 & 2 in W.P.5132/04 - No appearanceFor R.1 & R.2 inWP.4986/2004: Mr.V.VijayshankarFor R.1 inW.P.19967/2005: Mr.A.ArokiadossFor R.2 to R.22 inW.P.2832/2003: Mr.M.RadhakrishnanCOMMON ORDERDHARMARAO ELIPE, J.Since all the matters are inextricably connected with eachother, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The applicants before the Tribunal, who are the respondentsherein, are all the dependents of Group-C and Group-D Staff of thePostal Department, who died in harness or retired voluntarily onmedical grounds and they all have been approved for appointment oncompassionate grounds in Group-C and Group-D posts. They all areworking in various leave vacancies and short term vacancies. Sincenumber of vacancies are lying vacant, their services are beingutililzed for leave vacancies and thus they are serving without anybreak in service. The applicants were awaiting appointment inregular posts and were also imparted clerical training by theDepartment itself. After the judgment of the Apex Court in UMESHKUMAR NAGPAL vs. STATE OF HARYANA [(1994) 4 SCC 138], fixing thenumber of vacancies to be filled up by compassionate groundappointment as 5%, the Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu circle,issued a letter on 28.5.2001, seeking willingness in writing forconsideration for appointment on compassionate grounds by otherMinistries/Department from the candidates approved for compassionateappointment, who could not be given employment in the petitionerDepartment since they can also be absorbed in other GovernmentDepartments. Accordingly, all the applicants have submitted theirwillingness giving a choice of departments in which they prefer tobe appointed on regular basis.3. While things stood thus, the Ministry of Communications,Union of India, by the orders dated 25.7.2001 and 4.1.2002, impugned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before the Tribunal, has taken a decision that any maintenance ofthe waiting list of approved candidates for compassionateappointment should be discontinued immediately and since the waitinglist has been disposed, this may cause hardship to the approvedcandidates and in consideration of these aspects, a decision wastaken to consider such wait listed candidates for vacancies in thepost of Extra Departmental Staff. Based on the said letter, theChief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, has issued a letter on6.8.2001 to various Post Masters seeking a list of vacancies in theExtra Departmental Staff. Aggrieved, the applicants have filed abatch of Original Applications before the Tribunal praying to setaside the letter dated 25.7.2001 of the Ministry of Communications,Union of India and to direct the Department to appoint theapplicants as Postal Assistants within a time limit. 4. The writ petitioners/Department filed a common counterbefore the Tribunal stating that the compassionate appointment casesare considered by the Circle Selection Committee, constituted inaccordance with instructions of Directorate's Letter No.24-269/87-SPB 1 dated 24.9.1989 on merits; that as per the scheme ofcompassionate appointment circulated by the Department of Personnel& Training OM No.14014/6/94-Estt (D) dated 9.10.1998, it has beenclearly mentioned at para 7(f) that if sufficient vacancies are notavailable in any particular office to accommodate the persons in thewaiting list for compassionate appointment, it is open to theadministrative Ministry/Department/Office to take up the matter withother Ministries/Departments/Offices of the Government of India toprovide at an early date appointment on compassionate grounds tothose in the waiting list; the Supreme Court has ruled in the casesof HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. DINESH KUMAR [JT 1996(5)SC 319] and HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. SMT.A.RADHIKATHIRUMALAI [JT 1996 (9) SC 197] that appointment on compassionategrounds can be made only if a vacancy is available for that purpose.5. It is further submitted that by OM.No.14014/23/99-Estt(d)dated 3.12.1999, it was further clarified by Department of Personneland Training that the Committee for considering a request forappointment on compassionate ground should also take into accountthe position regarding availability of vacancy for such appointmentfor a really deserving case and only if vacancy meant forappointment on compassionate grounds are available within a year,that too within the ceiling of 5% mentioned, such cases should beapproved; that the quota for compassionate appointment was reducedto 5% as per the decision of the Government of India communicated inDepartment of Posts letter No.24-170/94-SPB I dated 11.12.1995 withthe result number of candidates selected for compassionateappointment are kept in the waiting list; that the proposal made bythe Department of Posts to the Department of Personnel and Trainingto relax the 5% limit in order to accommodate the approved https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ candidates kept in the waiting list was also turned down by theDepartment of Personnel and Training citing the Supreme Courtjudgment in U.K.Nagpal's case, cited supra, vide OM NO.42012/4/2000-Estt (d) dated 24.11.2000; that the Department of Posts had todiscontinue the maintenance of the waiting list of approvedcandidates for compassionate appointment on the basis of Ministry ofPersonnel D.O.P.&T OM No.42012/4/2000-Estt (D) dated 24.11.2000communicated in DG Posts letter No.24-1/99-SPB-I, dated 8.2.2001.6. It is further submitted that as on date, all the approvedcandidates already in the waiting list were asked to express theirwillingness for consideration for appointment by other Ministries,however, it was subsequently found by the Nodal Ministry that thechances for absorption in the Ministries are remote and that thereare also not enough vacancies; that keeping this in view, it wasfelt that an opportunity can be given to such wait-listed candidateswho are waiting for some time to be considered for vacant posts ofGrameen Dak Sevaks, if they are willing and eligible for the postand hence the Director General (Posts) instructed the Postal circlesto offer Grameen Dak Sevaks vacancies to dependents of regularemployees (Grade C and Grade D) who are already approved forappointment on compassionate grounds and whose names are kept in thewaiting list for want of regular departmental vacancies undercompassionate appointment quota as on 8.2.2001; that there is noobligation on the part of the approved candidates kept in thewaiting list to accept the offer of appointment as Grameen DakSevaks and therefore, there is no arbitrariness in the Scheme ofoffering Grameen Dak Sevak post to the candidates as theirwillingness have been called for and they have not been forced towork as Gameen Dak Sevaks; that the averment that there areapproximately 1,500 vacancies in the posts of Postal Assistantscadre is not correct and there are only 505 vacancies in the PostalAssistant cadre for 2001 out of which 50% is to be filled up underDirect Recruitment; as appointments have already been made everyyear upto 1999 in the 5% quota of the compassionate appointments,and the candidates considered over and above the prescribed quotawere kept in waiting list anticipating chances of more vacancies andwhen the chances are remote, it was decided to offer them GrameenDak Sevak posts taking into consideration the hardship faced bythem.7. Since the Tribunal, has quashed the impugned orders dated25.7.2001 and 4.1.2002 and directed the Department to consider thecase of the applicants for regularisation against the regularvacancies in the grade of Postal Assistants/Postman/Grade 'C' orGrade 'D' posts as per the normal rules and orders governingcompassionate ground appointments, the Department has come forwardto file these writ petitions and obtained orders of interim stay. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. In the meanwhile, there was a proposal to grant one timerelaxation to accommodate all the persons included in the waitinglist . Before a decision could be taken on this proposal at theHeadquarters, the Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle hadissued a notification to fill up 146 vacancies by direct recruitmentand some of the applicants have filed O.A.No.693 of 2004 for adirection to forbear the writ petitioners/Department from making anyappointment by way of direct recruitment and that O.A. was disposedof directing the department to take a decision on the proposalpending with the Ministry to grant one time relaxation. Pursuant tothe said order, the Department has rejected the proposal andinitiated action to fill up further 277 vacancies and the same waschallenged by filing an application before the Tribunal. It is alsostated that the persons who had applied much later to some of theapplicants have been considered for such appointment, while some ofthe applicants are waiting for appointment in violation of theinstructions issued in the letter dated 29.9.1989. The Tribunal,directed the Department to consider the case of seniors, to beappointed, if their juniors are appointed, based on the date of theapplication. Aggrieved, some writ petitions have also been filedwhich are also the subject matter in this batch of writ petitions.9. The main core of the argument of the learned AdditionalSolicitor General appearing for the writ petitioners in all thesewrit petitions is that there are well laid down rules regardingcompassionate appointment which stipulate that compassionateappointment will be made to enable the family of the deceasedemployee to tide over the financial crisis caused due to the deathof the sole breadwinner, who died leaving the family in penury andwithout sufficient means of livelihood and such an appointment shallbe made only on regular basis and that too if regular vacancy meantfor that is available upto the maximum of 5% of the vacancies andsuch an appointment is an exception to general rule that appointmentto public office should be made on the basis of competitive meritsand once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner,the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no needto make appointment on compassionate ground at the cost of theinterests of several others ignoring the mandate of Art.14 of theConstitution the Tribunal and the applicant cannot have a choice tochoose a post under the compassionate ground appointments, withoutconsidering the good intention of the writ petitioners to offerGrameen Dak Sevaks to the applicants, even though the waitlist hasbeen cancelled, has wrongly allowed the application, which needsupset by this Court.10. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for therespondents/applicants before the Tribunal would submit that theTribunal has considered all the facts and circumstances of the caseencircling the whole issue and has correctly arrived at the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conclusion to allow the applications filed by the applicants andtherefore, all these writ petitions filed by the State are liable tobe dismissed and would pray to dismiss all the writ petitions.11. In support of his contentions, the learned AdditionalSolicitor General of India would cite the following decisions:1. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD. vs. A.RADHIKA THIRUMALAI[(1996) 6 SCC 394];2. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS vs. SAJAD AHMED MIR [(2006) 5SCC 766] and3. UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs. M.T.LATHEESH [(2006)7 SCC 350].12. There is no quarrel with regard to the propositions laiddown therein by the Apex Court. But, in all these matters, theapplicants have crossed the stage, which is the subject matter inall the above cited judgments in the sense that all the applicantswere selected and approved for a posting on compassionate ground bya duly constituted Selection Committee as per the procedure laiddown and they were also provided with necessary training by theDepartment at its expenses in their training institutes and employedthem against leave vacancies and most of the applicants are inemployment continuously. Thus, the applicants in these cases arenot seeking compassionate appointment so as to apply the normsprescribed by the Apex Court in the above cited judgments, but allthese applicants are seeking regularization of their appointmentspursuant to their selection by the duly constituted SelectionCommittee and still they continue in their services and therefore,it cannot be said that these applicants are still in waiting list.Therefore, these cases cannot, in no way, be compared with the abovecited cases and therefore, the ratio laid down in the above cases bythe learned Additional Solicitor General does not come to the rescueof the case of the Department/petitioners.13. Admittedly, the Post of Grameena Dak Sevak is not a civilpost. As could be seen from Endt.No.B5/1-1/Rlgs, dated 18.7.2002issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, MaduraiDivision, Madurai, Grameena Dak Seveaks cannot be treated as CentralGovernment Employees. Since all the applicants were already offeredappointments and while circulating their candidature for appointmentagainst leave vacancies, the Department had indicated that theirservices would be regularised against future vacancies, they wereunder legitimate expectation that their services would beregularised in future course of action since they were already heldto be suitable and qualified for such posts by the duly constitutedSelection Committee. Therefore, as has been pleaded on the part ofthe applicants, they would have definitely given up all theirattempts to pursue other options available for securing employmentand by this time, most of the applicants might have even been over-aged to pursue any further post. Further, having allowed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ applicants to work for a number of years with the fond hope ofgetting their posts regularized, now the Department offers them anon-civil post like Grameena Dak Sevak lest to vacate the post nowthey are occupying, which cannot at all be appreciated. As has beenrightly observed by the Tribunal, the entire approach and the actionof the Department to offer the post of Grameena Dak Sevak to theapplicants is without any basis since the same is not at all coveredby the compassionate appointment. 14. As has already been stated supra, all the applicants havebeen selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee and afterafter affording them the necessary training, they were listed forregularization and their services were also utilized againstleave/short term vacancies. Therefore, it cannot be said that theapplicants are in waiting list for compassionate ground appointment,which stage they have already crossed.15. Pursuant to our direction to file a statement showing as tohow many approved candidates for the post of postman etc. arewaiting for appointment and how many were absorbed in regularvacancies between the period 1989 and 2001 and also to furnish thedetails regarding the recruitment conducted between 1989 and 2001and how many regular vacancies have been filled up during the saidrecruitment, the writ petitioners have filed a statement statingthat of the 622 candidates approved for compassionate appointment inTamil Nadu Circle, 89 candidates have been appointed as Grameena DakSevaks and the remaining 533 candidate who have been offeredGrameena Dak Sevaks posts have not come forward to accept the sameand have chosen to seek legal remedy for compassionate appointmentbefore the Court and since there are no vacancies under 5% quota forcompassionate appointment, waiting list has been abolished by theGovernment and the wait listed candidates are eligible for GrameenaDak Sevak posts according to their willingness and eligibility as ondate; that apart from them, 600 fresh applications from the year2000 to 2005 have been received from the Units/Regions of Tamil NaduCircle seeking compassionate appointment and these freshapplications have been processed and kept ready for submission tothe Circle Relaxation Committee, but Circle Relaxation Committeecould not be convened due to the matter being subjudice before theCourt.16. For the said note submitted by the Department, a strong andforcible reply note has been submitted by the respondents/applicantsstating that the Department has omitted to indicate the number ofdirect recruitment vacancies sought to be filled up for the year2006 in Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant category and the numberof direct recruitment vacancies arising year wise is not totalnumber of direct recruitment vacancies but denotes only 1/3rd of thesame, since there is a ban on direct recruitment from the year 2000. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Since 5% quota has to be calculated on the basis of the total directrecruitment vacancies arising for that year and not on the reducednumber of vacancies after applying the ban, the number of directrecruitment vacancies arising year wise as shown by the Departmentshould be multiplied by three to arrive at the total number ofdirect recruitment vacancies for that year.17. For the sake of convenience and better appreciation, thedetails furnished by the petitioners and the respondents areextracted in tabular columns below post-wise(a) Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants:Details as furnished by the DepartmentDetails furnishedby the respondentsYearNo.ofvacanciesunderDirectRecruitment (Regularvacancies)No.ofvacancies under5% quotaNo.ofpersonsappointedundercompassionate groundin 12%quota upto1994 and5% quotafrom 1995No.ofcandidates waitingforcompassio-nateappoint-mentNo.ofvacanciesunderdirectrecruit-ment(Regularvacancies) beforeapplyingbanNo.ofvacanciesforcompassionateappointments 5% ofregularvacancies2000-011608----4802420021608----4802420031206----360182004603----1809200532016----96048200623512----70535TOTAL105553----3165158(b) Postman/Mail GuardDetails as furnished by the DepartmentDetails furnishedby the respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ YearNo.ofvacanciesunderDirectRecruitment (Regularvacancies)No.ofvacancies under5% quotaNo.ofpersonsappointedundercompassionate groundin 12%quota upto1994 and5% quotafrom 1995No.ofcandidates waitingforcompassio-nateappoint-mentNo.ofvacanciesunderdirectrecruit-ment(Regularvacancies) beforeapplyingbanNo.ofvacanciesforcompassionateappointments 5% ofregularvacancies2000-01------------2002402----12062003603----18092004402----120620051206----36018TOTAL26013----78039(c) Group D/Mailman:Details as furnished by the DepartmentDetails furnishedby the respondentsYearNo.ofvacanciesunderDirectRecruitment (Regularvacancies)No.ofvacancies under5% quotaNo.ofpersonsappointedundercompassionate groundin 12%quota upto1994 and5% quotafrom 1995No.ofcandidates waitingforcompassio-nateappoint-mentNo.ofvacanciesunderdirectrecruit-ment(Regularvacancies) beforeapplyingbanNo.ofvacanciesforcompassionateappointments 5% ofregularvacancies2000-01804----240122002402----12062003402----12062004201----60320051608----48024 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ YearNo.ofvacanciesunderDirectRecruitment (Regularvacancies)No.ofvacancies under5% quotaNo.ofpersonsappointedundercompassionate groundin 12%quota upto1994 and5% quotafrom 1995No.ofcandidates waitingforcompassio-nateappoint-mentNo.ofvacanciesunderdirectrecruit-ment(Regularvacancies) beforeapplyingbanNo.ofvacanciesforcompassionateappointments 5% ofregularvacanciesTOTAL34017----10205118. Thus, from the note submitted by the Department and thereply note submitted by the respondents/applicants we are able tounderstand that there are sufficient number of vacancies in theDepartment to absorb the applicants into the services of theDepartment.19. The Tribunal, has considered all the facts andcircumstances of the case in their proper perspective, applying thecorrect proposition of law on the subject and has arrived at acorrect conclusion to direct the Department to consider theapplicants for regularisation against regular vacancies in which weare unable to find any illegality or perversity in approach callingfor our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.Therefore, all these writ petitions fail and they are liable to bedismissed.In the result, all the writ petitions are dismissed confirmingthe orders passed by the Tribunal. The petitioners are directed toregularise the services of the applicants before the Tribunalagainst regular vacancies in the grade of PostalAssistants/Postman/Grade-D posts as per the normal rules and ordersgoverning compassionate ground appointments within three months fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No costs. Consequently, all the connected MiscellaneousPetitions are closed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.RaoTo1. The Chief Post Master (General) to the Union of India, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai-2.2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Officer, Chennai city South Division, Chennai.3. The Director General (Post) to the union of India, Dah Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-1.4. The Secretary to the Government of India, Department of personnel and Training, M/o.Personnal,Public and Pensions, New Delhi-110 001.5. The Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai-2.6. The Chief Post Master Chennai GPO Chennai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The Senior Superintendent of Post Officers, Pondicherry Division, Pondicherry.8. The Superintendent of Post officers, Chengalpattu Division, Chengalpattu.9. The Director General of Police Ministry of Communication Department of Post, New Delhi-1 10. The Superintendent of Post officers, to the union of India, Salem West Division, Salem, Salem District.11. The Senior Superintendent RMS Chennai South Division, Chennai-600 008.12. The Senior Superintendent of Post officers, Nilgiri Division, Udhagamandalam 643 001.13. The Senior Superintendent of Post officers, Tuticorin Division, Tuticorin 628 008.14. The Senior Superintendent of RMS RMS 'MA' Division, Madurai 625 001.15. The secretary to the Ministry of Communications to the union of India, Department of Posts, Deh Bhavan, Sansad Marg New Delhi 110 001.16. The Senior Superintendent of Post officers Virudhunagar Division, Virudhunagar 626 001.17. the Senior Superintendent of Post officers to the union of India, Vellore Division, Vellore, Vellore District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. The Senior Superintendent of Post officers Tambaram Division, Tambaram, Chennai.19. The Superintendent of Post officers to the union of India, Tiruvannamalai Division, Tiruvannamalai.20. The Senior Superintendent of post officers Madras City North Division, Department of Post, Commander in Chief Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.21. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal City Civil Court Buildings, Chennai-104.+8 ccs to Mr.R.Malaichamy, Advocate Sr.No.36161.+1 cc to Mr.Karthik, Advocate Sr.No.36661.+1 cc to Mr.R.Parthiban, Advocate Sr.No.36660.Dated: 20.6.2007ORDERW.P.Nos.38990 of 2002, 2832 to 2835 of 2003, 9996,10059, 30188, 30345, 34623 of2003, 2567 of 2004, 2711 of 2004,2750 of 2004, 2762 of 2004, 3003of 2004, 3004 of 2004, 3766 of2004, 3767 etc of batch of 2003and 2934/04, 3142/04 etc.Dismissing these Petitions toissue writs of certiorari asstated within.SMV (CO)kk,km,nm,sg, sr, dcp 11/7